I think the comic also refers to another experiment where pigeons received a snack from a dispenser at totally random times. The pigeons, thinking that whatever it is they did last helped trigger the release of food would develop a complex ritual dance to receive food. (http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Skinner/Pigeon/) 108.162.229.123 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

The title text may also be a reminder that despite signal strength being important enough to some humans to act in an insanity-suggesting manner, it is not an essential need of a living organism, as the rats visibly demonstrate. --Koveras (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I thought 'reception' and 'wireless signal' referred to the cellular signal. That caused a lot of issues with the iphone and others. 173.245.62.89 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Agreed. I don't think the comic has anything to do with wifi. The alt text seems to bolster this view. SeanAhern (talk) 15:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Was it Mythbusters who tin-foiled an entire room to see whether it acted as a make-shift antenna? --Pudder (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

What if the pineapple is actually where the signal is coming from, but it's a directional pineapple... greptalk18:32, 08 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't be silly. Everyone knows pineapples are omnidirectional... Of course, given the decreasing power away from the plane, if the pineapple is being held high up due to you being on a chair, if you're holding your phone up as well you probably also need to not be on the chair for your phone to get the very best signal from it... Obviously. 141.101.98.247 19:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The first thing this comic made me think of was the belief in some people that if you hold a car key fob up to your chin and press a button, the signal from the fob will be more strongly focused (presumably by your skull) and thus able to reach your car from a greater distance. I wonder if there's any relationship? KieferSkunk (talk) 07:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I have a few issues with that video, even though it SEEMs to be an established video series with mostly competent people doing the stuff in them. The experiment shown was far from exhaustive and there were several things I would have challenged the demonstrator to try, especially given the claims made as to how the range was increased... if you're interested, hit me up on my talk page and I'll try to explain. -- Brettpeirce (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

As he says in the video, don't prejudge, simply do the experiment yourself. I have, and it very clearly works. Miamiclay (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)